IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0267766.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A mixed methods study evaluating acceptability of a daily COVID-19 testing regimen with a mobile-app connected, at-home, rapid antigen test: Implications for current and future pandemics

Author

Listed:
  • Nadia Nguyen
  • Benjamin Lane
  • Sangwon Lee
  • Sharon Lipsky Gorman
  • Yumeng Wu
  • Alicia Li
  • Helen Lu
  • Noemie Elhadad
  • Michael Yin
  • Kathrine Meyers

Abstract

Background: Widespread use of at-home rapid COVID-19 antigen tests has been proposed as an important public health intervention to interrupt chains of transmission. Antigen tests may be preferred over PCR because they provide on-demand results for relatively low cost and can identify people when they are most likely to be infectious, particularly when used daily. Yet the extent to which a frequent antigen testing intervention will result in a positive public health impact for COVID-19 will depend on high acceptability and high adherence to such regimens. Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods study assessing acceptability of and adherence to a daily at-home mobile-app connected rapid antigen testing regimen among employees of a US-based media company. Acceptability was assessed across seven domains of the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. Results: Among 31 study participants, acceptability of the daily testing intervention was generally high, with participants reporting high perceived effectiveness, intervention coherence, and self-efficacy; positive affective attitude; acceptable degree of burden and opportunity cost; and assessing the intervention as ethical. 71% reported a preference to test daily using an at-home antigen test than weekly employment-based PCR. Mean adherence to the 21-day testing regimen was 88% with 43% of participants achieving 100% adherence, 48% testing at least every other day, and 10% testing less than every other day. Conclusions: Despite overall high acceptability and adherence, we identified three implementation challenges that must be addressed for frequent serial testing for COVID-19 to be implemented at scale and have a positive public health impact. First, users need guidance on how and when to adapt testing frequencies to different epidemiological conditions. Second, users and institutions need guidelines for how to safely store and share test results. Third, implementation of serial testing strategies must prioritize health equity and protect those most vulnerable to COVID-19.

Suggested Citation

  • Nadia Nguyen & Benjamin Lane & Sangwon Lee & Sharon Lipsky Gorman & Yumeng Wu & Alicia Li & Helen Lu & Noemie Elhadad & Michael Yin & Kathrine Meyers, 2022. "A mixed methods study evaluating acceptability of a daily COVID-19 testing regimen with a mobile-app connected, at-home, rapid antigen test: Implications for current and future pandemics," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(8), pages 1-19, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0267766
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0267766
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0267766
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0267766&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0267766?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jonathan Grant & Liz Green & Barbara Mason, 2003. "Basic research and health: a reassessment of the scientific basis for the support of biomedical science," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 12(3), pages 217-224, December.
    2. Qin, Hua & Sanders, Christine & Prasetyo, Yanu & Syukron, Muh. & Prentice, Elizabeth, 2021. "Exploring the dynamic relationships between risk perception and behavior in response to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 285(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Frank R. Lichtenberg, 2018. "The Impact of Public and Private Research on Premature Cancer Mortality and Hospitalization in the United States, 1999-2013," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 63(2), pages 147-165, October.
    2. Claus Zippel & Sabine Bohnet-Joschko, 2021. "Rise of Clinical Studies in the Field of Machine Learning: A Review of Data Registered in ClinicalTrials.gov," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(10), pages 1-14, May.
    3. Martin-Lapoirie, Dylan & McColl, Kathleen & Gallopel-Morvan, Karine & Arwidson, Pierre & Raude, Jocelyn, 2024. "Health protective behaviours during the COVID-19 pandemic: Risk adaptation or habituation?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 342(C).
    4. De Witte, Dries & Delporte, Margaux & Molenberghs, Geert & Verbeke, Geert & Demarest, Stefaan & Hoorens, Vera, 2023. "Self-uniqueness beliefs and adherence to recommended precautions. A 5-wave longitudinal COVID-19 study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 317(C).
    5. van Doren, Taylor P. & Brown, Ryan A. & Izenberg, Max & Simmons, Callie & Heintz, Ron & Busch, Lisa, 2024. "Risk perception and reappraisal during the COVID-19 pandemic in southeast Alaska: Self-identified determinants of risk and protective health behaviors," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 361(C).
    6. Du, Jian & Li, Peixin & Guo, Qianying & Tang, Xiaoli, 2019. "Measuring the knowledge translation and convergence in pharmaceutical innovation by funding-science-technology-innovation linkages analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 132-148.
    7. Ryan, M. & Tuke, J. & Hutchinson, M.R. & Spencer, S.J., 2023. "Gender-specific effects of COVID-19 lockdowns on scientific publishing productivity: Impact and resilience," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 320(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0267766. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.